Aryan95614/aerograph-asrs huggingface dataset:
Aircraft: GULFSTREAM V / G500 / G550
Phase of flight: Final Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown

The first 'event' was during the day; after being handed off to VNY Tower. We were on vectors for a Visual Approach to Runway 34L that day (unusual for VNY; as they almost always land Runway 16). We were following a Falcon Jet for the Visual Approach; and cleared for the approach following him on a left base to Runway 34L. A little background info: VNY Visual Approaches to Runway 34L in a jet can be a bit tricky; especially at night; since there is terrain to the South by only about 3.5 miles; and generally speaking; jets should be lined up on final; established and stable at LEAST 3 miles out. That said; as the Falcon turned final (that we were following; on a left base); VNY tower asked us to extend 1/2 mile through final and then re-intercept to make room for an immediate departure after the Falcon landed. So we did. However; after doing the maneuver; which I had never done before; I realized it was unsafe. We are close in to the runway; low and slow; in a jet. That's not good. I figured the directions they gave me was uncommon; and he must have a flow window he's trying to make for the other guy on the ground; ready to depart. In retrospect; I should have turned down the clearance. My maneuvering was safe and fine; but in general; it's not a good idea to do that. Our landing was uneventful; and ATC thanked us for the help. Later that night as we were holding short of Runway 34L there happened to be another jet on approach on about a 3 mile left base. ATC asked the airplane to extend 1 mile through final and then re-intercept final; which the pilot accepted. Then the Tower Controller asked us if we could accept an immediate departure; which having been through what I had done that morning; I declined.This seems to be a regular practice when landing Runway 34L at VNY even at night! To me; that's unacceptably dangerous to request jets; while low and slow and close in to the runway and terrain; to perform maneuvers like that - especially at night. I will no longer accept those types of clearances unless I have plenty of room and clearance from terrain. At other airports; that would be OK - you'd most like be 5 or more miles out; at a higher altitude/speed; and have more terrain clearance. I highly recommend someone with some authority call VNY Tower and work out a different procedure to aid in their traffic flow. I did call the tower a couple days later to tell them my concerns. I asked for a supervisor; but instead I was given the controller who issued the clearances to me. It was an amicable conversation; however his response to me was; 'well; you don't have to accept the clearance. You can turn it down and then we'll work it out.' True; but you should not be issuing unsafe clearances in the first place. GV First Officer was asked by VNY Tower to fly through the final approach course and then turn back to the airport for departing traffic. The pilot complied; but felt this was an unsafe maneuver.
Aircraft: B737
Phase of flight: Initial Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Phase of flight was the descent to SAT on the BRAUN 2 RNAV Arrival. Initial check-in with approach was uneventful. ATIS stated 13R in use. The brief and plan was for the RNAV (RNP) Z 13R from CRISS. I was Pilot Monitoring (PM) and requested the approach upon check-in with SAT Approach. I retrieved the [new] ATIS via ACARS. The runway in use was now 31L. The Pilot Flying (PF) began loading the approach in the FMS and changing approach plates. I revised the approach request for the RNAV (RNP) Z Runway 31L from TROOP. SAT Approach cleared us for the approach to cross TROOP at or above 6000 ft. I read back the clearance. I do not recall exactly the readback if I included the restriction. The PF asked if we were cleared the approach; I stated 'yes.' The PF was verbalizing something about the vertical path. The PF put 5000 ft. in the altitude window initially and then 2200 ft. when cleared for the approach. The waypoint altitude in the FMS shows TROOP as an at or below altitude. The ATC clearance was for at or above. ATC restated the restriction when we descended below 6000 ft. prior to TROOP. A climb was initiated back to 6000 ft. to cross TROOP. The remaining part of the approach and flight were uneventful. TROOP is an IF on both the RNP Z 13R and on RNP Z 31L; but the altitude requirements are different. On the 13R Approach; TROOP is at or above 6000 ft. On the 31L approach; TROOP is at or below 6000 ft. Since the airport had just switched runways; I suspect that the controller was expecting us to cross TROOP at or above 6000 ft. yet once he cleared us for the 31R Approach without any altitude instructions; we continued our VNAV descent below 6000 ft. I suspect he was surprised to see our aircraft below 6000 ft. prior to TROOP. B737-700 Captain reported an altitude excursion occurred on the BRAUN2 RNAV Arrival into SAT when TRACON issued a late runway change.
Aircraft: MEDIUM LARGE TRANSPORT; LOW WING; 2 TURBOJET ENG
Phase of flight: Initial Approach
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

Descent through 15;000 flight crew knew that RWY 31 would be in use. This is the first time arriving to BRO in RWY 31 configuration. Restricted airspace (Mexico) is nearby. Crew briefed many strategies to mitigate the airspace issue and expected visual approach. We briefed specifically where and when we will configure and to what extent we will configure when. Aircraft descending through 7;000. We expected the visual approach. They expected us to fly the LOC B/C approach to 31. Of course we cannot do B/C approaches so there was a bit of a scramble to determine an acceptable approach. Aircrew and ATC decided on the VOR only Alpha approach circle to 31. Direct clearance was given to CHICO - of note; not an IAF. Final approach altitude inbound was 900 until after the FAF then it dropped down to 540.Aircraft was not fully configured prior to CHICO which is neither an IAF nor FAF and aircraft not fully configured 100 prior to the final approach altitude of 900 (which we cannot fly). The 1;000 ft gear horn went off and we configured 7nm from the field at that time. We continued the approach - in hind sight we should have discontinued the approach and either re-fly the approach no lower than 1;022 AGL or flown the ILS 13 circle 31.[Contributing factors]1) First real circling approach ever2) Recall of the lowest allowable altitude on circling approach did not happen 3) The location of CHICO and the final approach altitude of 900 (which we cannot fly) require a significant change to the configuration game plan. Configuration was emphatically addressed in the brief but the new VOR-A approach and just finding the CHICO intersection in the FMS (it's in the ARC initial) made connecting the dots difficult.Well- there was a beautiful LOC B/C approach in use at the time which [another aircraft] was using right behind us. We decided to not allow shooting B/C approaches. The published altitude minimums on nearly every portion of the VOR-A we cannot fly - I have discussed all of this with our flight ops supervisor and have been debriefed (counseled) with him. He agrees this was a very difficult position to be in with 1;600 ft overcast CIG. Air Carrier Captain reported company restrictions to approaches at BRO airport offer no options when weather is present.
Aircraft: CV 580
Phase of flight: Final Approach
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe

Captain called for gear down; upon moving the lever only 2 of the 3 landing gear lights illuminated. We proceeded to execute a fly by to have the tower visually verify all 3 landing gear were down. It appeared that only one of the two main landing gear were down. We then went northeast of the field to troubleshoot the issue and complete the QRH checklists. We successfully managed to get the remaining gear down and executed a second flyby. Landed without incident. Convair 580 First Officer reported only one of the main landing gear dropped when selected down. The crew was able to successfully troubleshoot the problem and make an uneventful landing.
Aircraft: C172
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC

While performing ground reference maneuvers with a student we had a close call with a crop-duster. Not sure the make/model of the aircraft. The student was looking for reference points to perform maneuvers while I looking for traffic. We had already performed a clearing turn. I looked up and a crop-duster was flying from right to left overtop of us close enough to make me jump and push forward on the yoke to ensure we avoided him. C172 flight instructor reported a near-mid-air-collision with a crop duster while performing ground reference maneuvers.
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Phase of flight: Taxi
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway

Upon crossing Runway 22L the Ground Controller issued us K hold short of K5. As we turned onto K; the First Officer switched to COMM 2 and called Ramp Control. Ramp Control cleared us to the gate so before reaching K5 I turned the aircraft off the taxiway and proceeded directly to the gate. As we were pulling in the Ground Controller got a hold of us and said we possibly have a pilot deviation and instructed us to give them a call. I parked and secured the aircraft and called the Ground Controller on the phone. They informed me that there is some confusion as to who has control of that area and since they did not give me direct instruction to switch frequencies I was in the wrong. They said that the aircraft on gate [x] had a pushback clearance and I possibly prevented them from pushing. I thought this was a bit curious because they were surrounded by deice trucks and were in the beginning process of getting deiced. In fact they weren't ready to push in until we had deplaned; boarded back up and also called for push approximately 25 minutes later. So there needs to be some uniformity as to when we can and should switch frequencies. It seems that each airport does things a little different. ZZZ1 never tells you to switch to Ramp they just assume you will approaching the ramp area. I'm very familiar with ZZZ and never had an issue where I'm abeam the gate and the Ground Controller hasn't assumed that I've switched to ramp. I always continue to monitor Ground even once I've established communications with the Ramp just in case they need to relay something to me. That's how I became aware of this situation. Never once did I pass K5 as I was instructed to hold short of. The Ramp Controller had cleared us in; and I was very vigilant to make sure we proceeded to the gate safely. Deice operations were happening in the pad; aircraft were parked at other gates with no beacons on and [another aircraft] was in the beginning process of getting deiced. So I felt it was safe to continue to the gate and follow [the] Marshaller's instructions until setting the brake. I think the North Ramp area needs to either be controlled solely by Ramp Control or completely by Ground Controllers. It creates confusion as to who to call and when; it seems one day it's ok to do something and the next its wrong. Clarification on this will be much appreciated. EMB-175 Captain reported contacting Ramp Control for clearance into the ramp without receiving communication transfer from Tower Ground Control.
Aircraft: COMMERCIAL FIXED WING
Phase of flight: Landing
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types

On the ground I briefed for the arrival at GYY planning to land Runway 12. Displaced threshold and landing distance was discussed. Runway 12 was anticipated due to light winds favoring that runway. I had not landed on 12 for several months. On base; for a brief moment I thought I picked out the end of Runway 12; but immediately realized I had spotted the newly constructed end of the future extension of Runway 12. The extension stands out distinctly from the surroundings because it is new white concrete. The new extension is not connected to the original runway and is still blocked off by an active high railroad embankment between the new extension and the useable current runway. We noted the distinct nature of the new construction and how the normal runway blended into the background as usual. My concern is that under high workload or reduced visibility operations a pilot may mistake the new construction for the end of the useable runway with disastrous consequences. The airport authority should issue a Notam about the new construction and the new construction should be marked with an X such as used to indicate closed runways. Captain reports the Runway 12 extension at GYY; which is under construction and not connected to the old runway; can be mistaken for the active runway. The new and old segments are still separated by a high railroad berm.
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

Aircraft X FL330 first on frequency assigned present heading for EWR spacing. +/- 060 heading. Aircraft Y FL350 next on frequency direct SLT still in adjacent sector 59 airspace. Aircraft Z FL320 request FL360 CYYZ departure southbound. When spacing was achieved for Aircraft X; I cleared Aircraft Y direct SLT by mistake. Thinking separation will be maintained Aircraft Z was cleared to FL340. Aircraft X did not turn. Aircraft Z was given two turns eventually a 270 heading to maintain separation from Aircraft Y. During this event I descended Aircraft Y to FL320 and assigned a 120 heading to proceed direct SLT to maintain separation from Aircraft Z intended for Aircraft X. Aircraft Y left FL350 and turned in adjacent airspace. When the error was noticed Aircraft Y left Sector 59 (FL330-unlimited) and entered 57 airspace (FL240-FL320). Aircraft Y was climbed to FL330 and turned back on course. Sector volume was 10-12 aircraft. Identify similar sounding call signs sooner. ZOB Center Controller reported problems associated with similar call signs.
Aircraft: PA28
Phase of flight: Initial Approach
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC

I was on a 45 degree entry for landing on Runway 15 at FLY. I announced my position on CTAF south and east of the airport at 5 NM and then again as I entered the 45 degree entry to a left downwind for landing. A bonanza reported on CTAF that he was departing runway 15 and then announced turning eastbound. I took evasive action to quickly descend 200 - 300 feet as we were head on. The bonanza was climbing and passed directly over me and we missed by no more than 100 ft. I attempted to contact the bonanza after the near miss on CTAF but he did not respond. FLY is very near to COS Class C airspace; a notch is cutout so that aircraft arriving and departing do not have to contact Springs Approach. Most aircraft departing the FLY traffic pattern do contact Springs Approach for flight following; pick up clearances; etc. I suspect what happened was the Bonanza switched frequencies immediately upon departure and contacted Springs Approach for a clearance. In doing so he was not on CTAF when I made my announcement of a 45 degree entry to downwind.FLY can be very busy and I believe aircraft arriving or departing; not remaining in the pattern; should be required to contact Springs Approach. Basically put the Class C floor over FLY and install a procedure to resolve potential conflicts. PA28 pilot entering the traffic pattern for Runway 15 at FLY experiences a NMAC with a Bonanza departing Runway 15 and turning east. A head on situation develops with the PA28 pilot diving under the Bonanza to avoid collision.
Aircraft: BEECHJET 400
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

I was working an approach sector. I had a BE40 inbound on vectors to final. I had delay vectored him to get two slow Cessna aircraft in to the airport. At that time I also had a military aircraft inbound with minimum fuel that wouldn't take a speed reduction and also stated he couldn't take a very long downwind for fuel. I vectored the BE40 through final and then to a crosswind heading to delay for the military aircraft. Another aircraft was behind the BE40 that was kept inbound to follow the military aircraft. I went to coordinate the minimum fuel and no delay with Tower and realized that the BE40 hadn't been turned back to downwind and was about to enter a higher 9;600 ft. MVA while being at 9;000 ft. I hung up with Tower and instructed the BE40 to turn left to a heading of 300 and climb immediately to 9;600 ft. He entered the MVA block at 9;100 ft. climbing to 9;600 ft within 1 mile of the MVA boundary. I would recommend looking over my traffic next time before coordinating with Tower to make sure everything was separated to not be distracted while in communication with them. Approach Controller reported vectoring an aircraft off the final approach course for sequencing placing it below the MVA.
Aircraft: B787
Phase of flight: unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown

Another Dispatcher asked for my assistance on how to work up and send an update request to the crew for CI500 for a flight to NRT. [We] sent an email to our lone FPSA/Senior Manager but no answer. As we don't expect him to be available to us 24/7; this can be a safety issue not having SME's to assist the 4 Sabre desks operating 24 hours a day. We were able to get an answer from a SME from [a different facility]. It is alarming that the company considers this situation safe. Let us not wait for time critical safety issues to happen and we cannot get an expert to assist us. Air Carrier Dispatcher questions how to work up and send an update report to the crew for a CI500 [Cost Index] and where to get help after hours.
Aircraft: ECLIPSE 500
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

Falcon Tower requested a release on an EA50. The aircraft departed on the Mesa One Departure but turned northbound to join his flight plan instead of remaining on the SID and flying southwest bound. The aircraft was level at 3;000 FT and only a mile from a 4;500 FT MVA by the time I established radio communication. I climbed the aircraft to 6;000 FT but it still entered the 4;500 FT MVA while it was at 3;000 FT. I asked the pilot if it could maintain its own terrain clearance. The pilot responded affirmative so I instructed the aircraft to do that then coordinated with the adjacent sectors for a hand off. There seems to be a lot of problems with pilots understanding the Mesa One SID; maybe some education or a better description on the SID itself to help with confusion. P50 Controller described a below MVA event involving a FFZ departure assigned a MESA1.MESA SID. The Controller claimed that the aircraft turned in the wrong direction; adding that pilots seem to misunderstand the published procedure.
Aircraft: A319
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor

Upon descent; the Flight Attendant in the forward galley called the rear galley to report an unusual odor and asked if we smelled it. We did not and when turbulence subsided; we went forward and noticed the odor. It was not easy to describe but was easily noticeably. The forward Flight Attendant's clothes also contained this odor due to her need to stay forward. After deplaning; she complained of feeling ill and requested to be removed from the remainder of the trip. Myself and the other Flight Attendant felt no effects and remained on the trip. A319 Flight Attendant reported a fume event in the cabin that was experienced by all flight attendants.
Aircraft: B767
Phase of flight: Parked
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown

I was doing my rounds of the aircraft here in ZZZ. As I drove by our pre-flighted Aircraft X; I could hear an APU running and stairs were up to the aircraft. As I walked up to the aircraft and entered; I noticed the aircraft was sealed from the pre-flight; I broke the seal and confirmed via EICAS indication that the APU was running. The pre-flight crew typically completes the pre-flight between XA-XA:30L. The aircraft was pre-flighted and sealed and left with the APU running for 2.75 hours with no one to monitor for fire events and EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) temps; this is a severe hazard and had there been a fire event there would have been no one to activate the fire bottle or follow proper procedures. [Recommend] following proper procedures and if no one is left in the cockpit to monitor the APU; please shut it down. [I] was told that maintenance filed a report saying they found the APU running on Aircraft X after we performed a pre-flight on [date]. To the best of my recollection I completed a full shutdown checklist which includes turning off the battery switch. Maintenance Supervisor and a Captain reported an aircraft was left unattended with the Auxiliary Power Unit running.
Aircraft: MEDIUM TRANSPORT; LOW WING; 2 TURBOPROP ENG
Phase of flight: Takeoff / Launch
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

We were taxiing out for takeoff on Runway 1C. This is an unusual setup for IAD. They normally use the east runway; 1R; for takeoff but it was closed this day. As we were taxing out for takeoff; we started the taxi checklist. ATC interrupted that by telling us to switch to Tower and they actually gave us the wrong one and then called us back to give us the right frequency. After that we completed the taxi checklist. We were the only ones out there but neither of us felt rushed. After takeoff; we turned to a heading of 340 per Tower instructions and after contacting Potomac Dep.; they told us to proceed direct to ZEHRN but we didn't show that in the FMS - we showed HEFLN. After giving us direct to JERES; they told us that HEFLN was used for Runway 30 departures. I double checked the fuel page and sure enough we had Runway 30 selected. While there was no deviation; it could have been serious if this was a true RNAV departure - they use headings off all runways at IAD.Whenever a checklist is interrupted; especially more than once as this one was by the two different ATC calls because of the wrong Tower frequency given to us; it is imperative that the checklist is restarted from the beginning; not picked up from where we left off - because you may pick up at the wrong point as we did. Also; we must verify the runway in the FMS with the heading and the runway number as we line up on that runway. Distracted during the Taxi checklist; an air carrier flight crew failed to set the proper takeoff runway in the FMC. The error was caught when ATC issued clearance to a fix that was not in the FMC.